Kolkata Court July 1928 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Saberjan Bibi and ors. Vs. Kantari Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal753a
1. This appeal arises out of application relating to delivery of possession in execution of a partition decree. The appellants before us are plaintiffs 1 to 3 or their heirs and the respondents-plaintiffs 4 to 6. The defendants in the suit have no interest in the proceedings. But in a partition suit every plaintiff may be in the position of a defendant. Therefore the question of the parties being ranged on the sama side in the suit is of no moment in this particular case. The controversy between the contending parties to this appeal was with regard to delivery of possession in respect of four dags of the properties in suit, that is to say dags 134 and 135 on one side and dags 164 and 165 on the other. The dispute was that the respondents, the opposite parties before the trial Court, claimed that the final decree had been adjusted between the parties in this way, that the petitioners the appellants before us would get dags 164 and 165, while the opposite parties would get the other two ...
Moti Lal Biswas Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal80
C.C. Ghose, J.1. The appellant before us Motilal Biswas has been convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 103, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in respect of each of the three counts, the substantive sentences being directed to one concurrently. So far as the question of the imposition of the fines is concerned, that portion of the order is clearly wrong and must be set aside, because it will appear from a reference to Section 103 of the Act that there is no provision made for the imposition of any fine. That being so, as indicated above, the portion of the Magistrate's order imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000 in respect of each count must be set aside.2. It appears that the appellant before us formerly, that is, prior to 1329 B.S. carried on business in the name of Bepin Chandra Motilal. He was a partner in the firm, the other partner being his brother Bepin Chandra...
Adu Mandal and anr. Vs. Hira Lal Mistry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal255,117Ind.Cas.539
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs have been successful in both the Courts below and the defendants have thereupon preferred this second appeal.2. The plaintiffs' case was that the land in suit appertained to a jama which they held under certain zemindar called the Mitras, that they had leased out the land to one Sonatan and that Sonatan had been dispossessed by the defendants in 1919. The defence, on the other hand, was that the land appertained to a jama of the defendants themselves which they held under certain zemindars called the Hatbaria zemindars.3. The learned Subordinate Judge in concurrence with the trial Court found that the plaintiffs' case that the land appertained to their jama under the Mitras, that the same had been leased out to Sonatan and that Sonatan had been dispossessed by the defendants had been made out. He came to this conclusion on a consideration of the evidence that there is on t...
Khajeh Habibulla Vs. Kaviraj Jogendra Nath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal352,121Ind.Cas.751
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order of the Subordinate Judge directing that a certain interest of the judgment-debtor should be sold. The application of the decree-holder was to attach and sell something which has been described in this way:As Khaza Soleman Quader along with 116 others has executed a wakfnama...and appointed the present judgment-debtor Nawab Khaza Habibullah as mutwali of the said wakf properties; it is prayed that the decretal amount may be realized by the attachment and sale of all the interests and profits with regard to the money to which the said judgment-debtor has been and is entitled as mutwali by virtue of the said wakfnama. Under the provisions contained in Clause3 of the aforesaid wakfnama,. the revenue, rents, cesses due to the superior landlords, taxes and collection charges, monthly allowances of the beneficiaries etc., are to be deduoted from the annual proceeds of the properties mentioned in the schedule below and...
Rani Harshamukhi Dassi and anr. Vs. Sarat Chandra Ata
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.864
Mitter, J.1. This Rule must be made absolute. It appears that the Munsif permitted the plaintiff to withdraw from the suit with liberty to institute a freshsuit on the plaintiff pays before hand the costs of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The Munsif does not state in his judgment that there are any formal defects in the plaint. That was an essential fact to be considered. The Munsif had no jurisdiction to permit withdrawal unless there was something to show that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect. The learned Advocate for the opposite party contends that after all the order of the Munsif was irregular and in some of the cases in the Allahabad High Court it has been held that in such a case it does not call for interference in revision. He concedes that this is contrary to the decisions of this Court. It has been decided in the case of Kharda Co., Ltd. v. Durga Charan Chandra 5 Ind. Cas. 187 : 11 C.L.J. 45 that such an order for withdrawal is without jurisdiction. The order fo...
Bisweshwar Dass Mondol Vs. Guru Charan Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.369
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the plaintiff one Bisweswar brings his suit for the enforcement of a simple mortgage bond for a sum of Rs. 500 with interest. The defendant is one Guru Charan who is the nephew of one Ram Durlav--the plaintiff's father. The facts found by the learned District Judge are, in substance, these: Guru Charan bought certain land and, as regards that land, Ram Durlav was his bargadar. This land appears to have been let out to tenants and the management of the land and the receipt of the part of the produce which belonged to Guru Charan were committed to Ram Durlav who was his uncle. In these circumstances, Guru Charan at the time of the mortgage in question having got into litigation, had need to raise a loan and commissioned Ram Durlav to arrange a loan for him. Ram Durlav represented that he had arranged the loan from one Batish Kabiraj; but, in truth and in fact, the money that was being lent was being lent not by Satieh Kabiraj at all but by Ram Du...
ManiruddIn Mandal and ors. Vs. Sreemati Charu Sila Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.150
1. In this case the learned Subordinate Judge remanded the cases at the request of the Pleaders for both parties for the purpose of taking evidence on the question whether the lessor of the defendant, Nabin Bar, was an occupancy raiyat or not. The matter arises out of an action in ejectment. The respondent brought a suit for rent and obtained a decree for ejectment against her tenant Nabin. It appears that Nabin and his predecessor in interest had been holding the land in question for a considerable number of years. In fact, it appears that the grandfather of Nabin, Kamal Bar was the original tenant. It has been found by both the Courts below that Kamal was a raiyat. The previous suit brought against Nabin proceeded upon the basis that Nabin was a non-occupancy raiyat. The Subordinate Judge has held that that decree would not be binding on the present defendants who claimed to have held the land under Nabin. The Munsif made a decree in ejectment. The Subordinate Judge held that it shou...
Mati Lal Biswas Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.851
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. The appellant before us Marilal Bwwas has been convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 103 of the Presidency Towns In-solvency Act and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in respect of each of the three counts, the substantive sentences being directed to run concurrently.2. So far as the question of the imposition of the fines is concerned, that portion of the order is clearly wrong and must be set aside because it will appear from a reference to Section 103 of the Act that there is no provision made for the imposition of any fine. That being so, as indicated above, the portion of the Magistrate's order imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000 in respect of each count must be set aside.3. It appears that the appellant before us formerly, that is, prior to 1329 B.S. carried on business in the name of Bepin Chandra-Matilal. He was a partner in the firm, the other partner being his brothe...
Raj Gopal Bhattacharji and anr. Vs. Sarat Kumari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal758,114Ind.Cas.82
1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands on declaration of the plaintiffs title. The suit was instituted on 10th May 1922. It would appear that on 3rd June 1910 the plaintiff had instituted a suit against the defendants under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, and that that suit had been dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that she had been in possession within six months of the date of the suit. The learned Munsif who tried the present suit held that : the present suit was barred by limitation under the provisions of Article 142, Lim, Act. The learned Court of appeal below has reversed the decree of the Munsif, holding that the finding in the possessory suit that the plaintiff had not been in possession for at least six months before the date of that suit is not res judicata in the present suit. We are unable to agree with the view of the law taken by the learned Judge. Under the provisions of Expl (2), Se...
Hem Chandra Naskar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.355
1. The petitioners before us have been convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of 24-Parganas by his order, dated the 29th February, 1928, under Section 76 (a) of the Bengal Embankment Act (II of 1882) and have each been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months, and they have been further directed under Section 79 of the said Act to remove a certain cross dam within one month from the date of the order in question. There were two appeals to the Sessions Judge by the two petitioners, but the Sessions Judge by his order, dated the 10th April, 1928, dismissed the said appeals.2. The facts involved in this application, shortly stated, are as follows: A complaint was preferred by the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tolly's Nulla Sub-Division, to the effect that the petitioners had erected a bund across a khal known as the Bantola khal and that the said bund had prejudicially affected the Bidyadhari river. The petitioners were t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »